Hard to believe that copyright law was once meant to promote the spirit of sharing.
Well anyway, the article was very well written (definitly targeted at napsterites and musicians) but he should have gone one step further and suggested some solutions to the problem.
I think the first thing that needs to happen is to get rid of that nasty Work for Hire act. It completly removes any incentive for publishing anything creative. I didn't know that the WTO and the EU had spoken out against it, it's a pity we went and made it into law.
Next I don't think that people or companies should be allowed to have sole ownership of a copyright unless they wrote, recorded, filmed, or photographed it themselves. If I am under contract when I write a song and it sells then the buyers should be given a share in that copyright (like a share in a company's stock). My record company can start out by buying half of my song. Then if they decide to sell copies each copy would come with a share in the copyright that is equal to every other share, except for my share which would always be half. As copyright shareholders the customers would be allowed to do whatever they want with my song. With each sale the song will become less and less profitable (thougt hopefully it will still have value) until the point that it virtually becomes public domain. I may sell copies too but I will still own half the copyright.
I think that solution will keep the record companies in check so they don't go willy nilly and spend most of their budget promoting just a few artists and ignoring the rest. If they do then they'll eventually lose money. To make money they would have to promote all their artists equally to make sure all their shares are equal in value. Every artist would have incentive to be creative without financial pressure. The songs themselves, not the copyrights, should be valuable.
As for copyrights on compilations, that should not be allowed. If I put together a Best of the 80's CD and decide to sell if I shouldn't be able to copyright it since those songs are already copyrighted. A compilation is just a playlist with pretty packaging, nothing really creative.
And intellectual property, give me a break! No one should be allowed to copyright their thoughts and emotions. If you make your thoughts public then other people will think the same things. If you say certain phrases then others will repeat them. There's nothing wrong with that and there's no way to prevent it. Only a song as a whole, not its individual parts, should be protected by copyright.
People sould be able to make money from their work, but people shouldn't make money from other people's work, and everyone should have access to published material. Democratic is the key term here. I like democratic art because almost everyone can enjoy it and it's easy to get. If it's a good song or book or movie then people should hear or read or view it without being limited by third-party compnies who were not involved in its creation. Any law that allows or promotes that kind of limitation is wrong.
Music stores will still sell CD's (because the're higher quality than MP3's and don't require an internet connection), movie theaters will still sell tickets (because few individuals have 20 foot screens with 1000 watt stereos in their homes, not to mention lots of popcorn), and book stores will still sell books (because no one want's to curl up on the couch with a 17 inch monitor). People who can afford to present the copyrighted material in a pleasing way will make money from their service. Record companies will still make money from distributing the music even if they have no control over it's creation, why should they believe otherwise?
Maybe there's some better solutions I can't think of right now...
|